Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Criminal proceedings against the Directors - Nature of financial transactions - vicarious liability - The High court found that the allegations, if proven, constituted criminal offenses, including cheating and misappropriation of funds, which are distinct from mere civil disputes over financial transactions. - The court clarified that directors could be held responsible if they were directly involved in the fraudulent activities of the company, rejecting the argument against vicarious liability in this context. - The court observed that the appointment of a provisional liquidator did not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings by the complainant company. - The court concluded that there was no abuse of process and that prima facie, the allegations warranted a trial.
Criminal proceedings against the Directors - Nature of financial transactions - vicarious liability - The High court found that the allegations, if proven, constituted criminal offenses, including cheating and misappropriation of funds, which are distinct from mere civil disputes over financial transactions. - The court clarified that directors could be held responsible if they were directly involved in the fraudulent activities of the company, rejecting the argument against vicarious liability in this context. - The court observed that the appointment of a provisional liquidator did not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings by the complainant company. - The court concluded that there was no abuse of process and that prima facie, the allegations warranted a trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
